New Website - Un-natural link warning with 2 weeks of going live
-
I have a customer who has a website, 8 years old. The business has changed, and he has launched a new website (and sub-business_ to handle a particular service. As such the main website will no longer be handling the new service. For purpose of example;
The service in question had it's own are set aside on his website, so what we have done is to 301 that part of the site (a single URL) to the homepage of his new website.
Old Business Site
Service 1
Services 2 (301 to new site)
Service 3New Business Site
This worked well, and within a week his new site was gaining traffic for the service keyword.
However, we have now had a un-natural link wartning in webmaster tools.
The old page on the old site had minimal links to it (around 400). It had a page authority of 42, and 142 linking domains.
The new website has been live a few weeks now, and has had 3 links to it, all genuine.
He was on page one for the new business name, and is now page 6.
Has anyone else ever seen this happen, and how should we deal with it. We could of course remove the 301 redirect and put in a recon-request, but the 301 seems like thje right thing to have done, and is genuine.
Any advice greatly appreciated.
-
John,
That wouldn't quite work in this situation.
The OLD website is still very much an active functioning site.... its is just one service which has been split into another company. So for example... we only want to redirect;
www.oldwebsite.com/servicename
to the NEW website.
I could of course just edit the old page and say ...."click here to go to the new site"..... but it does wind me up somewhat that the ideal solution, and proper way to do it is a 301.... but if we do it they get put under penalty.
The official Google line about doing what we want to do is a 301 redirect..
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/how-to-move-your-content-to-new.html
To quote them "It’s important to redirect all users and bots that visit your old content location to the new content location using 301 redirects."
I wonder if a cross-domain canonical would be worth doing?
-
Awesome to hear, David! The power of our collective minds
What I'd recommend is this:
- Redirect all the pages on your site to the homepage;
- Put up a splash page saying that the site has moved with a nofollowed link to the new site;
- Do something to make the customers smile - discount code, video of a puppy, something like that.
-
A special thanks to John for his advice on this issue.
To update you.... I submitted a site-map of the OLD website to Google via WMT. Hoping this would encourage a re-crawl and that Google would see the 301 was no longer in place. I then put in another recon request.
Thankfully the penalty has now been removed and I just had email confirmation this morning.
My quandary now is how we redirect from the old site to the new one.
To my mind a 301 redirect is the right way to do it.... but obviously we can't do this again. A 302 would serve the purpose of redirecting users to the new site (which is what we want to do), but obviously a 302 is not the right way to do it.
Any advice or ideas on how we should take people from the old site to the new one?
-
Thanks John, I have just emailed.
-
Gotcha. Would you mind DMing me the URL so I can have a look? Also, a list of any URLs that might be redirected into the site.
-
Yes their traffic dropped by around 90%. Its a brand new website and it ranked very quickly after launch when we put the 301 in place.
After peanty they went from position 4/5 for the main keyword to currently position 99. It is site-wide so affecting everything. The brand name they rank outside the top 50.
-
David -
I'm assuming you saw a traffic drop when you received the unnatural links warning? And is it a partial match or a sitewide penalty?
I'm not convinced that you always need to worry about a warning. If you see a traffic drop, then definitely. Otherwise, why not go do good SEO and create useful stuff that will rank instead of spending all this time worrying about a message that didn't affect you adversely?
-
To update this thread again;
After removing the 301 redirect, we put in a reconsideration request. To my amazement it was declined as they felt the site still had too many un-natural links.
Within webmaster tools the site is showing just 57 links.
The domain is only a few months old, and I'm not sure what else I can do as we haven't actually built any links and the 301 redirect is gone.
-
Just to update this thread. I have removed the 301, and I am going to leave it a week before putting a recon in.
-
Hi David
Without looking at the backlink profile of either domain I can't be certain, but it very much looks like that 301 redirect has brought about the penalty.
It doesn't matter if there are 30 bad links or 30000, if a Google quality reviewer believes the backlinks are poor quality, you run the risk of being penalised. I wonder whether you are seeing all of the links at the moment - it might be worth using the Link Detox tool for a more comprehensive backlink audit than Open Site Explorer can offer. This may reveal more poor quality links.
But it sounds like you're pretty confident that the 301 redirect has caused the penalty. Rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid it's not up to us to judge what links are "bad", it's Googles. So while you and I may think the old backlinks are OK, Google may take a different view. I would also rule out any chance the penalty may have become because of an influx of new links (via the 301) - having set up a number of new websites and redirected old domains (with hundreds of thousands of links) I've never seen this trigger a penalty by itself.
I'd put your theory to the test and remove the 301 and send a reconsideration request detailing you have done so. From what I can tell, that would remove the penalty. Run a deeper audit of your backlinks to see if yet-to-be-revealed bad links are present. And if you really want some authority links from other websites to pass through to the new domain, contact them manually and ask them to update their URLs.
Hope this helps
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Huge organic drop following new site go live
Hi Guys, I am currently working on a site that's organic traffic suffered ( and is still suffering ) a huge drop in organic traffic. From a consistent 3-400 organic visits a day to almost zero. This happened as soon as the new site went live. I am now digging to find out why. 301s were put in place ( over 2, 500 over them ) and there are still over 1,100 outstanding after review search console this morning. Having looked at the redirect file that was put in place when the new site went live, it all look OK, apart from the redirects look like this... http://www.physiotherapystore.com/ to http://physiotherapystore.com/ Where the new URL is missing www. - I am concerned this is causing a large duplicate issue as both www. and non www. work fine. I am right to have concern or is this something not to worry about?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HappyJackJr0 -
Using rel="nofollow" when link has an exact match anchor but the link does add value for the user
Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Can anyone tell me if this website was built with Frontpage or another cookie cutter drag and drop website creator by looking at the source code?
Can anyone tell me if this website was built with Frontpage or another cookie cutter drag and drop website creator by looking at the source code? http://naturespremiumpestdefense.com/ Thanks, Russell
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ULTRASEM0 -
Really, is there much difference between an unnatural links warning and Penguin?
We know that the unnatural links warnings are manual and that Penguin is algorithmic. (I'm not talking about the latest round of confusing unnatural links warnings, but the ones sent out months ago that eventually resulted in a loss of rankings for those who didn't clean their link profiles up.) Is there much difference in the recovery process for either? From what I can see, both are about unnatural/spammy linking to your site. The only difference I can see is that once you feel you've cleaned up after getting an unnatural links warning you can file a reconsideration request. But, if you've cleaned up after a Penguin hit you need to wait for the next Penguin refresh in order to see if you've recovered. Are there other differences that I am not getting?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarieHaynes0 -
Easy way to get some do-follow links for a new site
I am launching a new website and when I search for "list of do-follow websites" I find lots of people posting their list. Rather than individually sign up for hundreds of sites for one link at a time, is there a tool that can automate this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | StreetwiseReports0 -
Image Links Vs. Text Links, Questions About PR & Anchor Text Value
I am searching for testing results to find out the value of text links versus image links with alt text. Do any of you have testing results that can answer or discuss these questions? If 2 separate pages on the same domain were to have the same Page Authority, same amount of internal and external links and virtually carry the same strength and the location of the image or text link is in the same spot on both pages, in the middle of the body within paragraphs. Would an image link with alt text pass the same amount of Page Authority and PR as a text link? Would an image link with alt text pass the same amount of textual value as a text link? For example, if the alt text on the image on one page said "nike shoes" and the text link on the other page said "nike shoes" would both pass the same value to drive up the rankings of the page for "nike shoes"? Would a link wrapped around an image and text phrase be better than creating 2 links, one around the image and one around the text pointing to the same page? The following questions have to do with when you have an image and text link on a page right next to each other, like when you link a compelling graphic image to a category page and then list a text link underneath it to pass text link value to the linked-to page. If the image link displays before the text link pointing to a page, would first link priority use the alt text and not even apply the anchor text phrase to the linked page? Would it be best to link the image and text phrase together pointing to the product page to decrease the link count on the page, thus allowing for more page rank and page authority to pass to other pages that are being linked to on the page? And would this also pass anchor text value to the link-to page since the link would include an image and text? I know that the questions sound a bit repetitive, so please let me know if you need any further clarification. I'd like to solve these to further look into ways to improve some user experience aspects while optimizing the link strength on each page at the same time. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | abernhardt
Andrew0 -
First Link Priority question - image/logo in header links to homepage
I have not found a clear answer to this particular aspect of the "first link priority" discussion, so wanted to ask here. Noble Samurai (makers of Market Samurai seo software) just posted a video discussing this topic and referencing specifically a use case example where when you disable all the css and view the page the way google sees it, many times companies use an image/logo in their header which links to their homepage. In my case, if you visit our site you can see the logo linking back to the homepage, which is present on every page within the site. When you disable the styling and view the site in a linear path, the logo is the first link. I'd love for our first link to our homepage include a primary keyword phrase anchor text. Noble Samurai (presumably seo experts) posted a video explaining this specifically http://www.noblesamurai.com/blog/market-samurai/website-optimization-first-link-priority-2306 and their suggested code implementations to "fix" it http://www.noblesamurai.com/first-link-priority-templates which use CSS and/or javascript to alter the way it is presented to the spiders. My web developer referred me to google's webmaster central: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353 where they seem to indicate that this would be attempting to hide text / links. Is this a good or bad thing to do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dcutt0